Outcomes of routine use of percutaneous access with large-bore introducer sheaths (>21F outer diameter) during endovascular aneurysm repair

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of percutaneous femoral access with large-bore sheaths (>21F outer diameter) mainly employed for thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic endovascular treatment and to stratify the outcomes on the basis of the introducer size.

Methods: Between December 2015 and December 2018, all consecutive patients who received endovascular repair through a percutaneous approach with a suture-mediated vascular closure device (VCD) and the preclose technique were included in a retrospective single-center study called Totally Percutaneous Approach to Endovascular Treatment of Aortic Aneurysms (PEVAR-PRO). The morphologic characteristics of the access vessels and patients' demographics were recorded, and 30-day closure success was defined as the primary end point. Analysis of the closure success comparing large-bore sheaths vs small-bore sheaths (≤21F outer diameter) was performed after 1:1 propensity score matching of preoperative confounding variables.

Results: The closure success rate of the entire study cohort was 94% (622 femoral accesses in 360 patients; median age, 74 years; 84% male). Univariate analysis identified eight different factors associated with failure, but only two remained significant on multivariate analysis: diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-6.2; P = .011) and common femoral artery stenosis >50% (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.3-13.7; P = .019). After propensity score matching (1:1, 172 femoral accesses per group), closure success rate was not significantly different between large-bore and small-bore sheaths (90.7% vs 93.0%; P = .43). Multivariate analysis of the large-sheath group identified two factors associated with failure: small (<9 mm) femoral arteries (OR, 6.9; 95% CI, 1.5-31.6; P = .13) and access vessel calcifications involving more than one-third of the circumference (OR, 7.9; 95% CI, 2.1-29.4; P = .002). Neither previous femoral cutdown (44 accesses [23%]) nor percutaneous closure with VCDs (38 accesses [20%]) affected the closure success rate in the large-sheath group. Closure failure did not significantly increase the need for postoperative blood transfusions or hospital length of stay.

Conclusions: Off-label use of VCDs and the preclose technique for percutaneous approach with large-bore sheaths needed for complex aortic endovascular procedures is safe and feasible. Closure success rate is not significantly different from that obtained with on-label application of VCDs with smaller sheaths.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03484013.

Keywords: Endovascular; Percutaneous; Preclose; ProGlide; Stent graft; Thoracic; Thoracoabdominal; Vessel closure device.